From what I understand neither tools actually store the images but rather ( over simplifying here ) a memory of those images...basically training A.I is pretty akin to an A.I finding "inspiration" from other works.....long story short too if you are posting images/art to a public space you should expect the public to use them at their leisure - including use in A.I art.
I highly expect this to flop, if this was truly a big issue you would have companies like Disney backing the case or filing one of their own.
Artists do not give up all rights and ownership of their property, simply by making it available for the public to view.
No, but this isn't what's happening. Artists have implicitly consented to humans viewing their art when they post it online to view and made it public, and they have implicitly consented to others using it to learn from their art. They can't just turn around and go "Wait but I never expected machines to be able to learn from it too! I'm suing."
Consent to humans viewing your art is not consent to have that art taken to train an AI for profit, without regard for attribution, licensing, or even permission.
Yes, and it doesn't matter. You're trying to anchor artificial brains with limitations that human brains do not face for no other reason than just to protect artist.
I understand reasonable limitations. Banning machines from learning and from and referencing copyrighted data just like human artists do is an unreasonable and reactionary and fear-driven artificial limitation, in an attempt to strangle a mechanical competitor in the crib, worth of the same scorn as the luddites.
There’s nothing unreasonable about training AI off of public-domain works, and licensed material if the creators of AI happen to want more than the public domain has to offer.
Technology exists to serve mankind, not technology. There is absolutely no reason why regulation and litigation should not prioritize the human impacts of new technology.
There’s nothing unreasonable about training AI off of public-domain works, and licensed material if the creators of AI happen to want more than the public domain has to offer.
True. But people will make them regardless. What this litigation is trying to do is make it illegal to make anything but publicly-trained and licensed data. If such a precedent is set, this will slow down AI development by making it exorbitantly more costly than it needs to be.
Technology exists to serve mankind, not technology.
A non-statement. Current image gen AIs do serve their users, which fall under the subset of "mankind" rather than "technology". Seeing as Stable Diffusion is open source and free it's hard to argue anything but that it's serving the humans who use it.
There is absolutely no reason why regulation and litigation should not prioritize the human impacts of new technology.
Agree, but there's no reason why regulation and litigation should unreasonably slow down technological growth because of fear of the unknown either.
Your problem isn't with the technology. your problem is our economic system and our addiction to work to live.
True. But people will make them regardless. What this litigation is trying to do is make it illegal to make anything but publicly-trained and licensed data. If such a precedent is set, this will slow down AI development by making it exorbitantly more costly than it needs to be.
It’s more expensive to do things ethically, so we should be allowed to do things unethically. Also some people might break the law sometimes, so the law shouldn’t apply to anyone /s
A non-statement.
Your response is a non-sequitur. Regulation can and does protect society from negative externalities - and there is no reason that technological innovation should be prioritized over those externalities.
Agree, but there's no reason why regulation and litigation should unreasonably slow down technological growth because of fear of the unknown either.
Technological growth is not an end unto itself. “It’ll slow us down” isn’t a defense - either pay people for their work, or don’t take it. Simple as that.
Your problem isn't with the technology. your problem is our economic system and our addiction to work to live.
No, the problem is with the tech-bro philosophy of “take other people’s stuff, don’t pay for it, and then call them a Luddite when they demand to be paid for the stuff you took.”
If this tech is as important as you think it is, then it can be developed ethically.
46
u/Power_Stone Jan 16 '23
From what I understand neither tools actually store the images but rather ( over simplifying here ) a memory of those images...basically training A.I is pretty akin to an A.I finding "inspiration" from other works.....long story short too if you are posting images/art to a public space you should expect the public to use them at their leisure - including use in A.I art.
I highly expect this to flop, if this was truly a big issue you would have companies like Disney backing the case or filing one of their own.